The Pros And Cons Of The Combatant Commands

Since the end of the Cold War, the geographic combatant commands have become more involved in regional engagements, nation building, and providing humanitarian assistance. As a result, the Combatant Command structure has been a topic of many discussions and debates in recent years. Should the Combatant Commands be structured differently? Though there may not be a simple, clear answer to this questions, many believe that now is the time for change. Not everyone may be in favor of such a major undertaking. Many will push back and resist change. While others are willing to and have already implemented internal changes to more effectively operate in a joint, interagency, and multinational environment. We must redefine the roles of the COCOM, this would significantly streamline their procedures and enable them to efficiently operate in joint, interagency, and multinational environments.

b. As the world continue to moves towards total globalization, the military enters an era of change and uncertainty and the military must be willing
The original structure of the geographic COCOM was designed for us to go toe-to-toe with another country with the intent of destroying their civilization. Though this strategy may have worked in the 1990s, it may not work in today’s ever changing and complex world. As I read this article, I see that there is a recommendation to establish a Crisis Action and War Command, which would be solely “responsible for contingency planning, crisis response, and fighting the big fight”. No matter what we call this functional COCOM; it is obvious that we need to establish a command, who would offer us the ability to rebuild nations, who have suffered from the aftermath of a natural disaster or conflict, and can greatly influence and effect the rebuilding process and help stabilize a nation. The United States military has a history of coming to the aid of countries in the aftermath of a conflict as well as natural